Taliban soldier who killed in battle wins fight to stay in UK - to spare him from persecution by... the Taliban

An Afghan Muslim who claims he
killed people while fighting for the Taliban has used the Human Rights
Act to remain in Britain – despite Government efforts to deport him.

Zareen Ahmadzai, who spent three
years fighting in Afghanistan, has admitted using a Kalashnikov rifle
and firing rockets, as well as supplying weapons and food to the
Taliban.

The Home Office rejected his claim
for asylum, and when his appeal also failed, Ahmadzai was detained at
Harmondsworth immigration removal centre in West London while awaiting
deportation.

Threat: Taliban fighters, like the ones pictured, are said to be a threat to Ahmadzai

Yet when the 30-year-old – who
initially did not speak English – mounted a fresh appeal, he was able to
overturn the Home Office’s case on the grounds that his life would be
at risk if he returned home.

The decision is another setback for
Home Secretary Theresa May, who is under pressure to reform human rights
laws following a series of high-profile cases in which Muslim
extremists have avoided deportation.

Ahmadzai arrived in Britain illegally in May 2010 after travelling from Afghanistan in lorries.

Share this article

Two days later he was arrested at an
address in Wolverhampton and claimed asylum. When the Home Office
ordered he be deported, he appealed to the immigration court.

Although a judge rejected his appeal, Ahmadzai took his case to the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

The tribunal heard Ahmadzai joined
the Taliban after his father, who was a commander in Helmand province,
was shot dead by US soldiers during a battle. He said that he killed
people during his fighting with the Taliban as well as supplying the
group with weapons, water and food.

Home Secretary Theresa May is under pressure to reform human rights laws following a series of high-profile cases in which Muslim extremists have avoided deportation

The court ruling said: ‘He believed
that he was advancing the cause of Islam. He said that his father was
shot during fighting against the Americans.

‘The appellant used to fight for the
Taliban. He said that he had killed people. On different occasions he
had used a Kalashnikov and also a pistol.’

The ruling continued: ‘He was involved in fighting over a three-year period according to need.

‘He indicated that he had been in “a lot” of battles, sometimes two or three a night as well as daylight fighting.’

Ahmadzai claims that when he tried to
leave the Taliban after he realised innocent people were being killed,
he was taken to a mountain and tortured.

He alleges that shortly afterwards he
fled the country but cannot return because his life would be in danger
from both the Taliban and the Afghan National Security Forces, who
oppose the Islamic extremist group.

The court ruling said: ‘He was asked
why he could not relocate, for example, to Kabul. He asked
rhetorically if a murderer could expect to relocate in London.

‘He said the police would look for the murderer just as the Taliban and the authorities would look for him.’

Psychologists who have examined
Ahmadzai say they believe he was suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder, which is caused by highly stressful or frightening events,
such as armed combat.

Although the Home Office disputed
Ahmadzai’s story and did not believe he was wanted by either the Taliban
or the ANSF, Senior Immigration Judge Jonathan Perkins ruled that he
must not be deported. The case was heard at the tribunal in June last
year but the judgment was only announced in March.

Combat: Ahmadzai killed people during his fighting with the Taliban and supplied them with weapons and food

Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of
Migrationwatch UK think-tank, said: ‘This case is one of the absurdities
that brings the whole immigration, appeal and Human Rights Act process
into disrepute.

‘Most sensible people would think the Human Rights Act was never intended for this type of case.

‘The sooner that we can organise
ourselves to do something about the Act and how it intervenes to allow
people who should not be here to stay, the better.’